Korean unions demand withdrawal of special-zone bill with 52-hour week exemption

On 20 October, Democratic Party lawmaker Park Sang-hyuk (박상혁) lead-sponsored a bill on the designation and operation of hyper-regional strategic industry special zones for regionally led growth. The bill includes labor provisions on working hours and the use of fixed-term workers. The Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU, 한국노총) and the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU, 민주노총) each issued statements the same day urging that it be withdrawn. [ 1 , 3 , 4 ]

Kyunghyang Shinmun reported that the bill includes an exemption from the 52-hour week for high-income managers and research and development staff, an increase in the permitted use period for fixed-term workers from 2 to 4 years, and an extension of the settlement period under selective working hours to up to six months. It also reported that foreign-invested companies would be allowed unpaid holidays and that the scope and period of dispatch work could be extended. Kukmin Ilbo said the 52-hour exemption would cover workers in the top 3% of earned income who work in new product and technology R&D. [ 3 , 4 ]

The FKTU said it condemned the government and ruling party for pushing labor provisions behind the back of social dialogue, and said the dialogue is not a mere stand-in to justify policies the government wants. The KCTU said it strongly condemned the introduction of a bill containing what it called changes for the worse in labor rules before substantive discussion had begun in the one-point social dialogue, and said it would block the bill through broad solidarity and strong struggle if it is not withdrawn. [ 1 , 2 , 4 ]

Democratic Party floor leader Han Byung-do (한병도) said the party would submit one bill with the labor provisions and one without, would not set a date for passage, and would prepare a final version through merged review. Kyunghyang Shinmun reported that lawmaker Choi Ki-sang (최기상) would submit the version without the labor provisions on 21 October and that lawmaker Jung Jin-wook (정진욱) was expected to submit a separate bill as early as the next week. The Ministry of Employment and Labor said it would not fix the conclusion or deadline of the social dialogue in advance and would consult the National Assembly so that its outcome is reflected in the bill review. A ministry official told Kukmin Ilbo the timing of the introduction was decided by the party. [ 1 , 3 , 4 ]

The tripartite dialogue began on 18 September with a vice-minister-level preparatory meeting, and the fifth working-level meeting was held on 20 October. Kyunghyang Shinmun reported that the meetings had so far consisted of the government, the two confederations and employers presenting their positions, and that the labor provisions had not yet been discussed. An FKTU official said it protested the introduction and asked to postpone the next meeting; the sixth meeting, set for 23 October, was moved to 28 October. A KCTU official said the delay was not a boycott. [ 3 , 4 ]

According to Hankook Ilbo, six business groups said the labor provisions are essential for global competitiveness and called a bill without them very regrettable. An unnamed semiconductor industry official said the simultaneous introduction of two bills appeared to be an attempt to postpone a decision and gain time. An Asia Economy editorial on 21 October called the two-bill approach irresponsible and argued for limited exceptions with safeguards, while saying the extension of fixed-term use periods needed separate careful judgment. A Hankook Ilbo headline the same day reported that labor groups were pursuing an outside-the-Assembly struggle. On 22 October, a Progressive Party Jeonnam-Gwangju chapter urged withdrawal, as reported by Newsis. [ 2 , 5 , 6 , 7 ]